|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 341 to 360 of 2133 Records
-
2018 (2) TMI 1794
SSI exemption - after crushing chillies, the chilly powder is being sold - claim of appellant is that the process do not amount to manufacture and not included the above in calculation of SSI turnover - Held tat:- The crushing of the chilly is not amount to manufacture. When it is not amount to manufacture, then it is not subject to excisability and the value of the same cannot be included for the purpose of the SSI limit - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1793
CENVAT Credit - appellant engaged in manufacturing and trading activity - Rule 6(3)(i) of CCR 2004 - Held that:- The appellant have prevented from leading evidence in support of their contention that they have taken only proportionate Cenvat credit as permissible under Rule 6(1), and as such the provision of Rule 6(3) were not attracted.
Similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of MIRC Electronics Ltd. vs. CCE, [2013 (11) TMI 1422 - CESTAT MUMBAI].
Appeal allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating Authority, who shall after hearing the appellant pass a reasoned order.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1792
Vires of Public notice dated 10-1-2018 - the petitioner was directed to file their application before the second respondent well before the cut-off date and the application was directed to be received by the second respondent - Held that:- The petitioner did not comply with the direction issued in paragraph No. 10 of the order, dated 23-1-2018 on the ground that the petitioner does not have any contracts trade from China - Thus, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned notification.
The petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the impugned notification and apart from that, having not complied with the interim direction issued by this Court, on 23-1-2018, this Court is not inclined to entertain this writ petition - petition dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1791
Appeal admitted on the following substantial questions of law:
1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal ought to have held that interest and dividend income forms part of the core activity and cannot be separately assessed to tax as income from other sources?
2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal ought to have held that administrative expenses of ₹ 6,36,13,111/should be allowed as deduction while computing the interest and dividend income?
3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Tribunal ought to have held that profits from sale of ships and other related assets should qualify as total turnover from core activity for the purposes of proviso to Section 115VI(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961?
-
2018 (2) TMI 1790
Revision u/s 263 - non consideration of provisions of section 50C applicability to the cold storage building so to substitute actual sale consideration by deemed sale consideration - Held that:- The assessment was framed after due enquiry/investigation by the AO. Section 50C speaks about transfer of land or building or both and the adoption of deemed valuation being valuation of stamp purposes as the full value of consideration. It does not speak of plant and this contention was put on record vide reply of the assessee whereby it has been put on record that it was a depreciable business assets duly disclosed in the return of income. The cold storage was sold as a whole and constituted plant under section 43(3) of the Act.
The term “plant” has been interpreted as including cold storage building also and this line of reasoning is established by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kanodia Cold Storage [1974 (5) TMI 18 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT]. Thus provisions of section 50C of the Act is not applicable to the cold storage building so to substitute actual sale consideration by deemed sale consideration and the order of the Assessing Officer passed under section 147/143(3) of the Act cannot be a subject matter of section 263 - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1789
Tax Appeal is admitted for consideration of following substantial questions of law:
“A. Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in granting the deduction u/s 80IB of the Act on duty draw back of ₹ 18,01,67,542/-?
B. Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in granting the deduction u/s. 80IB of the Act of ₹ 28,54,26,054/- on interest income on FDI/ICD?
C. Whether the Tribunal erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition made on account of upward adjustment u/s. 92CA(3) of the Act on account of guarantee fee on loans availed by AEs of Assessee against guarantee of Assessee?”
-
2018 (2) TMI 1788
Rectification application - Held that:- Words and expressions “answered in the negative, i.e., in favour of the Revenue and against the Assessee” occurring in para-3(iii) of the judgment [2017 (12) TMI 1621 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is substituted by the words and expressions “answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the Assessee and against the Revenue”.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1787
Deduction u/s 80IA - Allocation of cost of husk between the steam generation and power plant - AO estimated the cost of consumption of husk at 55% of the total husk consumed in relation to the power generated by the power plant - Held that:- As decided in assessee's own case for the assessment year 2008-09 and 2009-10 ITAT allowed the appeal of the assessee holding that allocation of husk cost at 10% is reasonable. - Decided against revenue.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1786
Reopening of assessment - reopening after expiry of four years - time for AO to issue and serve the notice u/s 143(2) - Held that:- AO has issued several notices u/s 142(1) asking assessee to file the relevant information. Only upon serving final opportunity by issue of letter dated 19/01/2015, only on 20/03/2015, the assessee has filed the return of income by incorporating capital gain of ₹ 2,19,720/-. As stated earlier, AO has to complete the assessment on or before 31/03/2015, the assessee chose to file return of income only on 20/03/2015 by adopting delay tactics. There was no time for AO to issue and serve the notice u/s 143(2) to assessee and complete the assessment. In this situation, assessee cannot expect to claim the benefit of issue of notice u/s 143(2) as the assessee is well aware of the assessment and chose to delay the submission of return of income.
The assessee filed his return of income on 10/02/2008, but, failed to disclose the sale transaction, which generated capital gains. The same was declared only in the return of income which was submitted on 20/03/2015
After the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, no such notice shall be issued unless the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer aforesaid, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice. In a case other than a case falling under sub-section (1), no notice shall be issued under section 148 by an Assessing Officer, who is below the rank of [Joint] Commissioner, after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the [Joint] Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by such Assessing Officer, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.] [Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that the Joint Commissioner, the Commissioner or the Chief Commissioner, as the case may be, being satisfied on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer about fitness of a case for the issue of notice under section 148, need not issue such notice himself.
As per section 151(2), the power to sanction was with CIT/Addl. CIT. Therefore, the sanction of notice u/s 148 in the instant case by Addl. CIT was proper. Therefore, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed.
Provisions of section 50C become applicable since assessee has not challenged the issue for referring to valuation cell for evaluation of market value or made any submission for selling at a lower price than SRO value, we do not see any reason to interfere with CIT(A)'s order.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1785
Bogus purchases - Disallowance of approximately 15% as against 100% disallowed by the AO - Held that:- CIT(A) sustained the addition partially at 15% of the total purchases by observing that the assessee has estimated the profit on WIP @5% which is low and thus justified sustaining of disallowance at 15%. However, in similar type of cases the Coordinate Benches have taken a view that the percentage addition should be made ranging from 2 to 12.5% depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case in order to bring to tax the savings which the assessee has made by the reason of purchase of goods from grey market when the sales/consumption is undisputed. In the present case the sales were not disputed and the method of accounting followed by the assessee is project completion, therefore, we are inclined to estimate the profit on the above purchases at 3%. Accordingly appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1784
Offences punishable under the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) 1988 - Held that:- Four weeks time is given to the Ld. Counsel for the parties to file the additional documents. After expiry of four weeks, list the matter before the Hon'ble Court.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1783
Depreciation on computer peripherals, assessee claimed depreciation on the equipment like UPS, stabilizer, LAN/WAN, catalyst switches, network switches etc. at 60% - Held that:- We find that the equipment forms integral part of the computer systems and the assessee is entitled to the claim of depreciation at 60% by treating the peripherals as part of block of computers.
Disallowance of TDS receivables written off - Held that:- In view of the above factual and legal position, it has become necessary to verify whether the assessee had recognized the income as and when the services are rendered or goods are dispatched and subsequently, whether the assessee written off the difference amount of deficit payment and the amount under the TDS certificate issued, in their books of accounts. It would be conveniently verified by the learned AO and if he finds that initially the assessee recognized the total invoice amount and subsequently, identified the bad debt with reference to the deficit payment by the party and the amount under TDS certificate issued. On verification of compliance with these two conditions, learned AO will allow this expense. Ground allowed for statistical purposes.
Allocation of common expenses to the unit claiming benefit u/s 10A - Held that:- AO to verify whether the recomputation of the deductible amount is properly done, in the light of the submission that the deduction of the amount allocated to the STP unit’s net profit is incorrect and instead of the same the learned AO should have deducted the same from the assessee’s operating income. For this purpose, we remand issue to the learned AO for verification. Grounds allowed for statistical purposes.
Disallowance u/s 40A(i) - assessee had incurred expenditure in foreign currency under the head ‘royalty’ - Held that:- We are satisfied that the disallowance under section 40(a)(i) of the Act is revenue neutral and the learned AO is directed to allow the corresponding deduction to the assessee u/s 10A of the Act.
Expenditure represents the purchase of spares from foreign affiliates - TDS liability - PE in India - Held that:- Inasmuch as the payees are not identifiable, it would not be possible for the assessee to deposit any TDS even in case of its deduction. We are, therefore, deem it just and proper to direct the learned AO has to verify from the evidence to be produced by the assessee relating to the creation of provisions for project accruals and the year end reversal of such provisions, and accordingly to delete the disallowance. This ground is set aside to the file of learned AO for verification.
TPA - ALP determination - comparable selection - Held that:- Assessee as a tested party has been characterized as provider of software development services to its AEs which had used Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) as the most appropriate method for its benchmarking of international transaction, thus companies functionally dissimilar need to be deselected from final list.
Working capital adjustment to account for difference in working capital employed by the Assessee -Held that:- We consider it just and proper to direct the Ld. TPO to grant working capital adjustment to account for difference in working capital employed by the Assessee and the comparable companies.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1782
High Court Calcutta High Court 2018 (2) TMI 1782 - Calcutta High Court. Justices Aniruddha Bose and Rajasekhar Mantha. Mr. G.R. Sharma for the respondent. No appearance for the Revenue. Matter listed for 19th February 2018.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1781
Re-opening of assessment - reversal of ITC - mis-match occurred in transaction - calling for the records on the file of the respondent dated 20.12.2017 for the assessment years 2011-12, 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2015-16 - Held that:- The issue is covered by the decision in the case of M/S. JKM GRAPHICS SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL TAX OFFICER [2017 (3) TMI 536 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where the Court has directed the Assessing Officer to evaluate a centralised mechanism exclusively to deal with the cases of mismatch and to do some exercise, before issuing a notice.
Considering the fact that the Assessing Officer has to re-do the assessment, in view of the above said decision of this Court, this writ petitions are allowed and the impugned orders are set side - matters are remitted back to the Assessing Officer to re-do the assessment commencing from the stage of issuing notice of proposal - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1780
Reopening u/s 147 - basis of substantial evidence brought on record - Held that:- The impugned order holds that the order which was passed consequent to reassessment, has not confirmed the addition attributable to the reasonable belief of the Assessing Officer while issuing the reopening notice. The reassessment order has made an addition on an issue which is not a subject matter of the reasons recorded in support of the reopening notice as forming its reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment
The question as formulated becomes academic as our Court in Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. [2010 (4) TMI 431 - HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY] while examining Explanation 3 to Section 147 as held that the AO has to necessarily assess / reassess the income which escaped assessment on the basis of the formation of the reasonable belief for opening the assessment. It is only on assessing / reassessing such income which has escaped assessment in the reasons recorded, would it be open to the AO to assess / reassess any other income, which came to his notice during the reassessment proceedings. However, in the absence of reassessing the income which escaped assessment and which was the basis for formation of belief in issuing the notice, the order passed on reassessment is bad in law. No substantial question of law
-
2018 (2) TMI 1779
Assessment u/s 153A - proof of incriminating material - Held that:- No such incriminating material or evidence found/seized during search to conclude the generation of' undisclosed income of the appellant, the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court relied upon by the appellant in the case of Kabul Chawla vs. CIT [2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] is applicable in this case.
Accordingly, respectfully following the decision of the jurisdictional high court where it has been held that in an unabated assessment under section 153A of the Act, the addition can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found and seized during the course of search, whereas the addition made in the present case is without having any incriminating material/seized document is not sustainable. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1778
Penalty u/s. 271AAA - undisclosed income - Disclosure by key-person of the group for and on behalf of the appellant as sufficient compliance to immunity condition of 271AAA(2)(i)- Held that:- As CIT vs. Mukeshbhai Ramanlal Prajapati [2017 (7) TMI 966 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] holds it is incumbent for an authorized officer to put the searched assessee to question about the manner of having derived the relevant undisclosed income. Their lordships are of the view that the burden then shifts on the concerned deponents to substantiate the said manner of having derived the undisclosed income in issue.
We sought to know from learned Departmental Representative as to whether the authorized officer had raised “manner query” in the course of search statement or not. He fails to pinpoint any such question raised in search statement. Learned counsel refers to CIT(A)’s order(s) under challenge pages 4 onwards extracting the relevant search statement(s) followed by necessary correspondence with the DDIT-1. Mr. Soparkar’s case is that no such specific query on the relevant “manner issue” came to be raised from the authorized officer. We therefore conclude that the CIT(A) has rightly deleted all the impugned penalties after holding that all these assessees had duly complied with the relevant immunity conditions u/s.271AAA of the Act. The Revenue’s identical sole substantive grievance in all these appeals is therefore rejected. - Decided against revenue
-
2018 (2) TMI 1777
Penalty u/s 271AAA - voluntary disclosure of income - 'manner’ of deriving undisclosed income - Held that:- A bare perusal of statement recorded under s.132(4) shows that no specific question were confronted to the assessee about the ‘manner’ in which the aforesaid undisclosed income were earned and towards ‘substantiation’ thereof. It is well settled by long line of judicial precedents including the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT vs. M/s.Mahendra D.Shah (2008 (2) TMI 32 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) and Pr.CIT vs. Mukeshbhai Ramanlal Prajapati (2017 (7) TMI 966 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT) to hold that in the absence of any query raised by the Revenue towards ‘manner’ of deriving undisclosed income and ‘substantiation’ of the ‘manner’, the obligation to meet the aforesaid requirement for claiming immunity cannot be fastened on the assessee.
Admittedly, the assessee has included the undisclosed income as recorded under s.132(4) of the Act and paid taxes thereon together with interest while filing the return of income. Therefore, in our considered view, the assessee has substantially complied with the conditions specified under s.271AAA(2) of the Act for exoneration from the clutches of penalty proceedings under s.271AAA of the Act. - Decided in favour of assessee
-
2018 (2) TMI 1776
The Supreme Court in the case 2018 (2) TMI 1776 - SC Order, allowed the appellant to move the tribunal for reconsideration of the order regarding the extended period of limitation. The appeal was disposed of accordingly.
-
2018 (2) TMI 1775
Estimation of net income - N.P. determination - Held that:- A.O. as well as Ld. CIT(A) have relied upon the decisions of the ITAT rendered in 2011 / 2012 whereas the Assessing Officer, under similar circumstances, made scrutiny assessments wherein the stringent change in policy as well as impact of the High Court directions were taken into consideration for the purpose of estimating the net income @ 3% and in fact in the later decisions of the Tribunal, the net income was estimated @ 3% of the cost of goods sold. Under these circumstances we direct the A.O. to adopt 3% of the cost of the goods sold as the income of the assessee.
............
|
9911796707
